Is the US fucked?

[MKSheppard]

HOw about the families of servicemen on welfare because they don't make enough to support themselves?

That's almost always been around through so many administrations I've
lost track.

[Stormbringer]

<snip military wanking>

Obviously, you misunderstood the whole point about how conservatives always think every government program should be slashed and burned in the name of "efficiency" except for one, thus indicating a massive inconsistency in their logic.

Not entirely and nor does it mean their logic inconsistent. Many want the federal government to stay more strictly to it's Constitutionally defined duties and nothing else. Just because a lot of conservatives push for cuts at the federal level doesn't mean that it extends to every level. There are plenty of conservatives that favor education, social programs, and the like at the state and local levels. The fact is defense is appropriately a national level endeavour.

HOw about the families of servicemen on welfare because they don't make enough to support themselves?

That's almost always been around through so many administrations I've
lost track.

And that's a good thing why? Especially now that we're in a nice open ended war, politicians are treating the troops with backhanded contempt, and we need an army of professional, disciplined soldiers not a mob of low brow thugs. Really, the fact that it's gone on doesn't mean it's a good thing. That it ever even happened is disgraceful.

[Stormbringer]

I think Stormbringer is refering to my "The Navy has no fucking clue" thread in the HAB....Ender can coroborate most of what I said there.



An entire Carrier Strike Group finding out they're going on deployment 4 months early, from the local news? The Navy is cutting 60,000 sailors, and end result is that we're going to be even more officer heavy? (right now we got more officers than Chiefs on the Hizzile). If there current fleet building plan goes forward, and continues for the next ten years, we're only going to have 120 vessels in the Navy?

Yeah, it's shit like that. And neither is it limited to the Navy. It's all the armed forces that have suffered from poor management and ill concieved schemes.

Something is seriously wrong. I can't imagine it's money issues, not with the navy making out like bandits last budget.

It's not so much the dollar amounts so much as the poor use they're put to. They're going to boondoggle programs and studies and who the hell knows what else instead of necessary things.

And of course there's the trend that began in the Clinton era of short changing the present in favor of a hypothetical future. Usually on that isn't nearly so rosy when it comes around.

[Darth Wong]

<snip military wanking>

Obviously, you misunderstood the whole point about how conservatives always think every government program should be slashed and burned in the name of "efficiency" except for one, thus indicating a massive inconsistency in their logic.

Not entirely and nor does it mean their logic inconsistent. Many want the federal government to stay more strictly to it's Constitutionally defined duties and nothing else. Just because a lot of conservatives push for cuts at the federal level doesn't mean that it extends to every level. There are plenty of conservatives that favor education, social programs, and the like at the state and local levels. The fact is defense is appropriately a national level endeavour.

But why? Why not compartmentalize it and hand it over to the private sector? The private sector will always get the job done more efficiently, remember? Have you been remiss in studying Limbaugh 101?

[LadyTevar]

Obviously, you misunderstood the whole point about how conservatives always think every government program should be slashed and burned in the name of "efficiency" except for one, thus indicating a massive inconsistency in their logic.

Not entirely and nor does it mean their logic inconsistent. Many want the federal government to stay more strictly to it's Constitutionally defined duties and nothing else. Just because a lot of conservatives push for cuts at the federal level doesn't mean that it extends to every level. There are plenty of conservatives that favor education, social programs, and the like at the state and local levels. The fact is defense is appropriately a national level endeavour.

But why? Why not compartmentalize it and hand it over to the private sector? The private sector will always get the job done more efficiently, remember? Have you been remiss in studying Limbaugh 101?

Now you're being sarcastic

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not the military. It unfortunatly MUST hold its loyalty to the constitution rather than to the dollar.

[Darth Wong]

Not the military. It unfortunatly MUST hold its loyalty to the constitution rather than to the dollar.

Ah yes, but everything else should be beholden only to the dollar and corporate profit, right? Ahhh, I love libertarianism.

[Imperial Overlord]

Until they need it. Then you justify it to yourself one way or another and take it. Like cattle farmers grazing on government land in the South West.

[Stormbringer]

But why? Why not compartmentalize it and hand it over to the private sector? The private sector will always get the job done more efficiently, remember? Have you been remiss in studying Limbaugh 101?

Frankly, I think there are a lot of services that the government should be providing. Not necessarily the Federal Government, true, but the government at least.

You seem to miss that the US is a federalist republic, there's more government than the national government.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not the military. It unfortunatly MUST hold its loyalty to the constitution rather than to the dollar.

Ah yes, but everything else should be beholden only to the dollar and corporate profit, right? Ahhh, I love libertarianism.

I love your strawman here. Only the most hardline most nutbaggy anarchists would advocate a privatized military.

[Darth Wong]

Not the military. It unfortunatly MUST hold its loyalty to the constitution rather than to the dollar.

Ah yes, but everything else should be beholden only to the dollar and corporate profit, right? Ahhh, I love libertarianism.

I love your strawman here. Only the most hardline most nutbaggy anarchists would advocate a privatized military.

Speaking of strawmen, what part of the term "everything ELSE" do you not understand, exactly?

[Gil Hamilton]

I love your strawman here. Only the most hardline most nutbaggy anarchists would advocate a privatized military.

That's the thing. If you go by strict libertarian theory, it would be better to break up the military into four or five private militaries in direct competition with each other in order to increase efficency. Mike is just pointing out that there are some major provisos and asterisks that come with the idea of privatization. I myself wouldn't have used the military as an example, however. I'd have used the Center for Disease Control or the power grid (the latter of which has had major issues directly because of being partially privatized).

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If you go by strict libertarian theory, it would be better to break up the military into four or five private militaries in direct competition with each other in order to increase efficency.

Isn't it already like that to an extent, at least on the manufacturing level? Different companies compete to make military hardware and stuff?

[Gil Hamilton]

Simple, raise the minimum age and give the AARP the finger. Either that, or scrap the system and have people pay into their own personal accounts(slowly weening people off the original system so you dont get horrible backlash)

It would be vulnerable to the stock market, but that is why one should invest in things that are ALWAYS in demand(Food Staples: Maruchan, Nissin, General Mills etc) and have a diverse porfolio.

A combination of both may also work

Un-huh. You realize that you are about 30 years to late for alot of people, for example, my father. He's been paying into Social Security since the 60s and he's going to need that money when he retires, because, frankly, having a family means that he's got very little saved or invested (can't afford to, we've needed every bit of the pay checks that we've gotten and have been a three income house for a long while). Scrap the system and you've just dicked him and several million Americans over.

Great idea, Aly.

Privatize the ghettos(seriously, it has worked wonders on the eat coast from what I have read) with a profit motive involved, a private company will keep the low income housing projects safeand in good repair.

Um, you know that just about every apartment buildings in low income areas are owned privately, right? Have you been in a rough areas apartment complexes? Private ownership hasn't made one difference, because people can't afford to move and they often have 100% occupancy, so the guy who owns the building and the landlords don't have to do much more than what's legal and otherwise don't give a shit. After all, it would cost them more to clean up the place and keep in good repair. Maintainance is expensive after all. The "profit motive" is squarely in the court of them doing as little as possible and dicking people over as much as they can.

Unemployment... ours is actually rather low compared to some other western countries. it is rather unavoidable.

Ten bucks says that you are neglecting discouraged workers and half a dozen other classifications of people who aren't in work but don't get counted by the system in that figure. "Unemployment" figures and rates are one of the most qualified and cooked figures in economics.

That is why you should vote for me. I am perfectly content to charge half of congress with purjury/treason(violating their oaths of office) or veto budget proposals that are to high, until the nation gridlocks

Gridlock isn't necessarily a bad thing, but purposely setting out to cause it is.

[Gil Hamilton]

Isn't it already like that to an extent, at least on the manufacturing level? Different companies compete to make military hardware and stuff?

Contracters like Boeing aren't part of the military.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Ohhh. You guys mean the actual military military, not contractors. Oops.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Un-huh. You realize that you are about 30 years to late for alot of people, for example, my father. He's been paying into Social Security since the 60s and he's going to need that money when he retires, because, frankly, having a family means that he's got very little saved or invested (can't afford to, we've needed every bit of the pay checks that we've gotten and have been a three income house for a long while). Scrap the system and you've just dicked him and several million Americans over.

So? What are we going to do? Please, provide an alternative that magically wisks the problem away without negative consequences.

Either we slowly phase out the existing system, and the reluef comes to late, or we do a quick fix, and possibly harm millions. Or we leave it the way it is, and raise the amount everyone pays into FICA threefold.

Not much choice.

When iI refer to guettos, I refer to government built low income projects. You know, the ones that are less expensive to demolish and rebuild rather than maintain...

Yes, there are privatly owned ghettos. So I suppose I must conceede that one

Ten bucks says that you are neglecting discouraged workers and half a dozen other classifications of people who aren't in work but don't get counted by the system in that figure. "Unemployment" figures and rates are one of the most qualified and cooked figures in economics.

And? Unemployment measures the ercentage of the pipulation activly searching for work. THose are the people that matter, and frankly, jobs dont reach out and bite people on the ass.

Gridlock isn't necessarily a bad thing, but purposely setting out to cause it is.

Not so much cause gridlock intentionally, but saying "No congress I am not authorizing 79 million dollars to research a supertrout" ""No congress I am not alowing you to strip money away from the FBI"

No line item veto means lots of vetoed budget propisals

[Alyrium Denryle]

Will someone fix those typos? I have such a shitty keyboard....

[Gil Hamilton]

So? What are we going to do? Please, provide an alternative that magically wisks the problem away without negative consequences.

Either we slowly phase out the existing system, and the reluef comes to late, or we do a quick fix, and possibly harm millions. Or we leave it the way it is, and raise the amount everyone pays into FICA threefold.

Not much choice.

So millions get dicked now or millions get dicked later. Is your motto "The problems of the future, today!" I don't know the solution to the problem. If a 22 year old college student could figure it out, we wouldn't have the problem. However, I do know that all you are doing is picking who you are dicking over, not actually solving the problem.

When iI refer to guettos, I refer to government built low income projects. You know, the ones that are less expensive to demolish and rebuild rather than maintain...

And who owns the buildings in them? The state builds them, and then they get landlords.

Yes, there are privatly owned ghettos. So I suppose I must conceede that one .

That's the thing, you're idea works under the assumption that (A) people aren't assholes who would screw their neighbors over for a nickle and (B) that anyone can just get up and go somewhere else if they don't like being shit on.

And? Unemployment measures the ercentage of the pipulation activly searching for work. THose are the people that matter, and frankly, jobs dont reach out and bite people on the ass.

Wrong-o. Just because they are classified as something doesn't mean they aren't looking. There is a bunch of economic arcana in there that makes people who are actively seeking work be classified as discouraged, even if they really aren't. That's how you got the Bush Administration claiming unemployment was down and their was job growth... because they reclassified half a million people as discouraged and in order to be "employed" you only have to work one hour a month that is taxed.

At this point, you're flailing to defend your tired philosophy here you've decide is your flavor of the month.

Not so much cause gridlock intentionally, but saying "No congress I am not authorizing 79 million dollars to research a supertrout" ""No congress I am not alowing you to strip money away from the FBI"

No line item veto means lots of vetoed budget propisals

Then why not push for a line item veto than trying to cause purposeful disruption?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So millions get dicked now or millions get dicked later. Is your motto "The problems of the future, today!" I don't know the solution to the problem. If a 22 year old college student could figure it out, we wouldn't have the problem. However, I do know that all you are doing is picking who you are dicking over, not actually solving the problem.

The problem with this issue, is that it is a no-win situation. As far as I can see, one can either scrap the system slowly, and replace it

People get hurt in the transition

We can up taxes considerably

This will harm our economy and cause further job loss

We can replace the system in one fell swoow

millions of people get dicked over still.

It really is a lesser of two evils.

And who owns the buildings in them? The state builds them, and then they get landlords.

The landlord as far as I know, doesnt own the buildings The state does.

At this point, you're flailing to defend your tired philosophy here you've decide is your flavor of the month.

Then reclassify more accuratly, and dont try to spin the numbers. Then see where we are actually at.

Then why not push for a line item veto than trying to cause purposeful disruption?

It was tried, SCOTUS crushed it

[Lonestar]

HOw about the families of servicemen on welfare because they don't make enough to support themselves?

Yeah, but that's the families of E-1s who have six kids. Most junior enlisted people aren't married, and those that are tend to either have one kid or none at all.

As an example, I can think of some recent E4s in my workcenter who are married and have kid/on the way. Yet, they are better off than a lot of people in this regard. Why?

(1) Good Benefits for your dependents on the cheap
(2) Either BAH or (God Forbid) Base Housing. Fortunately, at least in the San Diego Area, the Navy is fixing some of the chronic problems enlisted family housing is infamous for.
(3) Family centers where you can, now shit, go and "borrow indefinately" kitchen utensils/sets, big ole baby bags, etc.

Now, if you're a dumbass E-1, especially if you're there because you did something really, really, really stupid that the Command had to bust you in rank for, ( Which is something commands tend to avoid so as to not inflict hardships on families), who is 22 with 4 kids, well, Jesus man, what were you thinking? You know the Navy hands out condoms for free, right?

Sorry, these guys get no sympathy. My good buddy of a coworker, a CTT3 who happens to be a fairly devout mormon...well, he's also a smart enough guy to know the whole "Be fruitful and multiply" thing doesn't apply when you're pulling down 700 in base pay every two weeks.

The guys on welfare, especialy nowadays, woould be the same people abusing the system on the outside. I'm sure of it.


(and I'm thinking of a few specific people when I write this).

[The Cleric]

So? What are we going to do? Please, provide an alternative that magically wisks the problem away without negative consequences.

Either we slowly phase out the existing system, and the reluef comes to late, or we do a quick fix, and possibly harm millions. Or we leave it the way it is, and raise the amount everyone pays into FICA threefold.

Not much choice.

So millions get dicked now or millions get dicked later. Is your motto "The problems of the future, today!" I don't know the solution to the problem. If a 22 year old college student could figure it out, we wouldn't have the problem. However, I do know that all you are doing is picking who you are dicking over, not actually solving the problem.

I'm paying into SS right now, and I won't see a dime of that money. Ever. Yeah, you can call me a greedy bastard and whatever the fuck else you want, but we're going to be dicking LESS people over now than if we let it go till there's no money and just have to shut it down.

[Prozac the Robert]

The problem with this issue, is that it is a no-win situation. As far as I can see, one can either scrap the system slowly, and replace it

People get hurt in the transition

We can up taxes considerably

This will harm our economy and cause further job loss

We can replace the system in one fell swoow

millions of people get dicked over still.

It really is a lesser of two evils.

You know, higher taxes do work ok in other places. And a gradual rise in taxes might not be too bad. Gordon Brown's 'stealth taxes' don't seem to have hurt our economy too much anyway.

[AdmiralKanos]

I like the way Alyrium considers tax increases to be so horribly verboten that it's better to fuck over millions of people. Believe it or not, life does not end if your taxes go up, especially considering that the US has comparatively low taxes right now. And working people (especially wealthy ones) can afford to pay higher taxes, whereas someone who's too old to work doesn't have a lot of options. I'm aware that victimizing the helpless is part of the Great Conservative Tradition, but let's be realistic here.